any thoughts to the NFL.com article calling for a Seattle-GB matchup as #1 on christmas list? They probably realize we don't make it without Sherman (possibly) and thus want to make sure we make it into the playoffs giving us the "dream" re-match.

makkapakka wrote:First off let me say that I'm as pumped and jacked about a good young Seahawks team as anyone.

That being said, maybe I'm way off but how many people here think Sherman has been falsely accused and has a legit appeal vs him and the 'Hawks working the system to stagger the suspensions. Browner seems to have accepted his guilt.

There is a reason why this stuff is banned. Have a google of 'Adderall dangerous side effects'. If some guys get away with it, then more guys will get away with it, and eventually virtually everyone in the league will have to keep up with the joneses. Worst though would be the pressure on up-and-coming-kids to keep up, most of whom will never see the NFL.

If he's guilty the thing to do man up about it. A public apology would be a good start (perhaps I missed it but I didn't hear one from Browner?). If he's guilty I think it's lame to work the appeal system and pretend otherwise.

The court system is screwed up anyway. It rewards Prosecuting Attorney's for getting fast results, and often times (IMHO its more often they we would like to admit) people take plea deals when innocent and plead guilty as to not risk getting the max penalty. Don't believe me? Look up Brian Banks.

I don't know what to think either way, but I don't need a public apology, and am not about to condemn anyone without being shown proof.

1. This isn't in the courts.2. This isn't a criminal matter. There is no prosecutor.3. This isn't at all similar in any way shape or form to what happened to Brian Banks.4. Google "Straw Man Argument"

I don't get ANYTHING from the linked article that indicates that either the appeal or the suspension is known to be pushed back to the 2013 season.

I haven't seen ANYTHING on any other media to suggest that the status has changed at all. We've known for a while now that Sherman has hired a lawyer, and that the December 14th date for the appeal will be moved back. We don't know ANYTHING about when that appeal will occur, and the timing of any possible suspension.

"I'm not the type to let a sleeping giant lie. I wake up the giant, slap him around, make him mad and beat him to the ground. I talk a big game because I carry a big stick." --- All-Pro Stanford Graduate

makkapakka wrote:That being said, maybe I'm way off but how many people here think Sherman has been falsely accused and has a legit appeal vs him and the 'Hawks working the system to stagger the suspensions. Browner seems to have accepted his guilt.

I don't think the team is behind this. I think these are decisions made by the individuals, in consultation with their agents and/or lawyers.

Since the players are unionized, I doubt that the team can try to lean on them to do anything outside of their own will. It's possible that they decided individually to do this for the good of the team, but that seems doubtful too. The value of their next contract, as well as other possibilities to market themselves, hangs in the balance over this stuff. They're probably going to put themselves first, and they should.

The team absolutely cannot have any real impact on the situation. They aren't even really supposed to discuss it with the player. I'm sure some informal talking happens, but it's entirely between the player and the NFL.

BocciHawk wrote:The team absolutely cannot have any real impact on the situation. They aren't even really supposed to discuss it with the player. I'm sure some informal talking happens, but it's entirely between the player and the NFL.

Is this true? I'm not saying you are wrong, I could just be ignorant of this fact, but as I understand it, the team is not allowed to discuss this publicly. I also have heard that a team cannot punish a player in any way for being suspended for PED's, but I hadn't heard that they couldn't discuss it at all with them. Just curious if this is your take or if you got this from a reporter or some other source?

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”